Re: An Edward I line for Matthew Clarkson of New York?
Douglas Richardson
Great post.
The book, Notices of the Stanhopes, published in 1855, pp. 8, 16-17
discusses Joan Rochford, wife of Henry Stanhope, and her gravestone
located at Haughton, Lincolnshire. The gravestone displays the arms
of Longvillers (for Stanhope) and Rochford. This heraldic evidence
would appear to support statements in print that Joan, wife of Henry
Stanhope, was a Rochford.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
Gentleman’s Mag. 64 (1794): 1184–1185 discusses the descent of the
manor of Stoke Rochford, Lincolnshire from Henry Rochford (husband of
Elizabeth Scrope) down to the Skeffington family.
Douglas Richardson
For further evidence that the Skeffington family descends from Henry
Rochford (husband of Elizabeth Scrope), please see VCH Warwick, 6
(1951): 8-12, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57084&strquery=arley
This account shows that the manor of Arley, Warwickshire which was
owned by Henry Rochford descended to the Skeffington family. Taken
together with the other evidence, I'd say your proposed line of
descent from Henry Rochford down to the immigrant, Matthew Clarkson,
is good.
wjhonson
Odd that this write-up calls Elizabeth le Scrope "Bigod", after the
death of her third husband Oliver Lord St John of Lydiard Tregoze (d.
3 Apr 1497). I would think she'd be known as Lady St John.
Perhaps there is some error in assigning her first husband as Sir
John Bigod of Settringham, the one who died at the Battle of Towton 29
Mar 1461.
It brings up another problem as well. The descent of Arley goes to
this Elizabeth le Scrope "Bigod" 1498 as some kind of grant with
remainder to HER SON Ralph. WHO was living in 1511 as a lunatic but
in possession of Arley.
However, Joan Rochford, also a child of this union is called "heiress
of her father". Obviously this must be some sort of mistake. Perhaps
she was eventual heiress, or heiress of her brother Ralph or something
of that sort.
Another possible fix would be that Ralph was not a Rochford at all,
but was a Bigod, however that wouldn't make much sense in Arley
descending to HIM in exclusion of Joan who you would think would be
the right blood heir of the Rochfords.
Messy.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
>
> Odd that this write-up calls Elizabeth le Scrope "Bigod", after the
> death of her third husband Oliver Lord St John of Lydiard Tregoze (d.
> 3 Apr 1497). I would think she'd be known as Lady St John.
>
> Perhaps there is some error in assigning her first husband as Sir
> John Bigod of Settringham, the one who died at the Battle of Towton 29
> Mar 1461.
>
> It brings up another problem as well. The descent of Arley goes to
> this Elizabeth le Scrope "Bigod" 1498 as some kind of grant with
> remainder to HER SON Ralph. WHO was living in 1511 as a lunatic but
> in possession of Arley.
>
> However, Joan Rochford, also a child of this union is called "heiress
> of her father". Obviously this must be some sort of mistake. Perhaps
> she was eventual heiress, or heiress of her brother Ralph or something
> of that sort.
>
> Another possible fix would be that Ralph was not a Rochford at all,
> but was a Bigod, however that wouldn't make much sense in Arley
> descending to HIM in exclusion of Joan who you would think would be
> the right blood heir of the Rochfords.
>
> Messy.
>
> Will Johnson
Oh this is exciting.
When Arley came finally to Thomas Skeffington, he had come of age *in*
1571.
That's super. We now know very closely when Thomas was born.
This knowledge let's me shave *17 years* off the birthrange of his
mother Mary CAVE who is a Cecil 3, her brother Roger Cave happens to
be the husband of Margaret CECIL who are ancestors to Sarah Ferguson,
Duchess of York.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
On Feb 23, 4:04 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Odd that this write-up calls Elizabeth le Scrope "Bigod", after the
> death of her third husband Oliver Lord St John of Lydiard Tregoze (d.
> 3 Apr 1497). I would think she'd be known as Lady St John.
It was a common practice for a woman to adopt the surname of her first
husband and use it for the rest of her life, even if her own birth
name was a better surname. In this case, Elizabeth Scrope adopted
the surname of her first husband, Sir John Bigod, and used her
throughout her life, even though she had multiple marriages
afterwards. Her name given in her will dated 1503 is "Dame Elisabeth
Bigod." A transcript of her will is published in Testamenta
Eboracensia, 4 (Surtees Soc. 53) (1869): 215–216. It may be viewed at
the following weblink:
In a related vein, a woman might also use her own birth name after
marriage, if it was of higher standing than her husband. This custom
explains why the immigrants, Diana Skipwith and Anne Baynton, used
their maiden names after their respective marriages.
Likewise, In earlier periods, women on rare occasions adopted the
surnames of their mothers, if their mother was particularly high born.
> Perhaps there is some error in assigning her first husband as Sir
> John Bigod of Settringham, the one who died at the Battle of Towton 29
> Mar 1461.
Elizabeth Scrope's first husband was definitely Sir John Bigod who was
killed in 1461.
> It brings up another problem as well. The descent of Arley goes to
> this Elizabeth le Scrope "Bigod" 1498 as some kind of grant with
> remainder to HER SON Ralph. WHO was living in 1511 as a lunatic but
> in possession of Arley.
The "grant" you are referring to is a settlement made in 1498, by
which Elizabeth (Scrope) (Bigod) Rochford settled the manors of North
Stoke and South Stoke, Lincolnshire and Arley, Warwickshire on herself
for life, with remainder to her son, Ralph Rochford, and his issue,
and failing such issue, to the right heirs of her late husband, Henry
Rochford. A transcript of this settlement is published in two
sources, Lincolnshire Notes & Queries, 3 (1893): 121–122 and Stokes et
al., Warwickshire Feet of Fines, 3 (Dugdale Soc. 18) (1943): 211–
212. Here is a weblink to the former source:
> However, Joan Rochford, also a child of this union is called "heiress
> of her father". Obviously this must be some sort of mistake.
Joan (Rochford) Stanhope was obviously not the heiress of her father.
Rather, either she or her issue were heirs of her brother, Ralph
Rochford.
> Another possible fix would be that Ralph was not a Rochford at all,
> but was a Bigod, however that wouldn't make much sense in Arley
> descending to HIM in exclusion of Joan who you would think would be
> the right blood heir of the Rochfords.
Sorry, you have your facts wrong. Contemporary records prove that
Ralph Rochford was the son and heir of Henry Rochford, Esq., by his
wife, Elizabeth Scrope. He is a separate and distinct person from his
half-brother, Ralph Bigod. Both Ralph Rochford and Ralph Bigod are
mentioned in the will of their mother, Elizabeth Scrope.
> Messy.
Not messy at all.
> Will Johnson